Re: Dipstick pseudohematuria: unnecessary consultation and evaluation. P. K. Rao, T. Gao, M. Pohl and J. S. Jones J Urol 2010; 183: 560-565.

摘要

We applaud the authors for their study and totally agree with their attempt to reduce the number of unnecessary, costly and unpleasant/harmful evaluations that urologists perform. However, we have several concerns about the information presented. Any report eliminating more than 72% of patients (229 of 320) from the original series, for whatever reasons, must be regarded with some skepticism. Could not the knowledge of a prior positive dipstick test for hematuria influence the decision to evaluate (and how to evaluate) a patient "referred for a primary reason other than hematuria" or with "significant symptoms or urological history"?